The headline unfortunately downplays the scope of the data, since it covers a lot more than social media - it can include legally priviliged and "otherwise confidential" information, as well as information on "religion, racial or ethnic origin, political views, medical condition, sexual orientation."<p>What is remarkable is the absolute lack of oversight over the sharing of this sensitive data with foreign governments and law enforcement, but especially with so-called "industry partners". And that there don't appear to be any legal penalties for its misuse.
Quick, spread some FUD[0] to justify our conduct and nanny-state:<p>[0] <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/17/uk-most-severe-terror-threat-ever-mi5-islamist" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/oct/17/uk-most-seve...</a><p>Seriously the timing of these 2 stories is very questionable.
The police in Australia have been sharing private information about members of community groups with private companies to "manage" future activities and potential "security threats".<p>Since 2009. That's before the Snowden leaks.<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Desalination_Plant#Sharing_of_private_information_with_private_consortia" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_Desalination_Plant#S...</a><p>One might assume that the information about members of these groups was gleaned from social media sites. I feel like this is an example of "guilty until proven innocent".
How is the government storing legally privileged information at all lawful? And Amber Rudd wonders why respectable technologists sneer at her - maybe it's because they've read 1984 and want to do what they can to stop the madness!
Original source: <a href="https://privacyinternational.org/node/1532" rel="nofollow">https://privacyinternational.org/node/1532</a>
I feel like... I'm actually OK with this?<p>Social media is public. It's <i>intentionally</i> public. That's really the whole point. It's your choice to post things to Facebook or Twitter or Snapstergram.<p>Of all the privacy issues that we should be worried about it feels like this should not be one of them. If you don't want your social media info used... don't post it to social media!
You will never understand what is happening around you if you don't find the courage to escape your own self-censorship, self-reinforced prison-of-a-worldview. You are all able to think critically, but for reasons I won't go into, fail to use the same critical thinking for a huge part of the information you come across.<p>[1] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aOhnK01wMY" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aOhnK01wMY</a>
[2] <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHi-1PJsgbI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHi-1PJsgbI</a><p>Disclaimer: I do not know nor trust those people. I personally found them more-or-less by accident and do think that noone in this day-and-age would be able to make any tours if a) there was no "guarding angel" protecting them b) were not part of the game<p>peace and prosper ;)
So what if they collect it and share it with foreign governments? Social media is public to begin with, so big deal if they are basically indexing the information. Doesn't stop them moaning it's not enough or preventing bomb attacks.